You say you've struck a nerve, but you may as well say the same thing if you'd declared truthers are somehow inherently linked to paedophiles and a couple of people turned up to challenge you. You're behaving rather like a conspiracy theorist.
Crikey, you should know by now what I'm like when it comes to Holocaust denial.

Are there holocaust revisionists/deniers among the ranks of non truthers as a whole?
Yes there are.

Do they hang round with Alex V?
Almost certainly not.

Do non truther assertions and holocaust denial complement each other as beliefs?
I think in certain circumstances they do, depending of course what you believe. Coming from a critic's viewpoint it is impossible not to see certain parallels in the belief systems and logical fallacies employed in both cases. One tends to see the Jew at work everywhere, vastly inflating their power and influence, reconstructing the past into a wildly implausible conspiracy involving thousands of people that extends through the past 60 years. The other tends to see the Holocaust denier everywhere, vastly inflating the power and influence of a very vocal minority, reconstructing the truth movement into a large network of historically ignorant or outright mendacious cranks.

What does this say about 9/11 debunking?
I don't really know. I don't think the political persuasion of its followers makes the case for or against a conspiracy any clearer.

Does it harm the general cause of 911 debunking?
Yes I think it does, because it makes it harder as a truther to consider it a serious movement.

I'm happy to consider any criticisms of the debunking community (if such a thing exists), or the community at large.

Are you suggesting that a truther would be put off accepting the official theory on 9/11 because of the existence of holocaust deniers somewhere in society? I doubt that would be a serious problem, personally.

If you could find me a debunking website that contains any far-right or debatably anti-semitic content, then I would be surprised. Find me one and I will send you five pounds. For that reason alone, I suspect that the infiltration of the far-right into 9/11 truth debunking is not an issue for debate.

As I'm sure you know, I could find 100 websites that contain what some may perceive as right-wing extremism referring to 9/11 truth. I could do it in 5 minutes with a simple google search. There are probably thousands of such sites.

Yet there is no significant influence of the far-right among the truth movement? I find that a preposterous suggestion, and I suggest that you are in denial about the issue to at least some extent.

Two practical questions.

IF the truth movement were perceived to have a far-right element in it by those looking at it from the outside, would that be a good thing for the truth movement?

IF it's not your responsibility or desire to address or even acknowledge such issues, then whose responsibility is it? Nobody's? What does that mean for the future of the truth movement?

Alex, this is getting decidedly circular - I can point again to the anti-war movement, the animal rights movement and the environmental movement as campaigns that all have far right/Holocaust denial contingents. And that this means little in terms of what those campaigns are fundamentally about.

If you really, really want me to I can dig up examples of far right/Holocaust denier types that don't agree with truthers. But it means nothing.

The "significance" of far right influence is highly debatable. It has been my observation that the deniers tend to be largely indistinguishable from the Jew theorists. They form a contingent (at least online), but so do no planers and it would be farcical to lump truthers par se in with no planers.
And when Stefan says he doesn't actually meet them is he lying? Can you tell me with any authority how many of these people are actual campaigners and how many just use the net to try to spread their hobby horses?

What these the-truth-movement-is-a-hotbed-of-far-right-and-Holocaust-denial-ideas 'critiques' are poor at doing is recognising the opposition that exists to these people. The big arguments denial generates are largely ignored because it spoils the image of the TM as a haven of far right extremism.
Sites like Truthaction and Oilempire are perfectly clear about where they stand on this issue, even this one with its denial ban. Except if it let denial continue unchecked it would be accused of colluding with it - when it banned it, it was accused of hiding a dirty secret of the TM - a no win situation, blaming a site any tom, dick and harry can register on for what a minority choose to obsessively raise. You use the word "infiltration" and I think that's interesting. It may be a conspiracy theory on my part, but I do think a certain class of denier and far right type target the TM as a potential recruiting ground. You do get these roving deniers that crop up on websites determined to push Jew theory and denial.

Quote:

IF the truth movement were perceived to have a far-right element in it by those looking at it from the outside, would that be a good thing for the truth movement?

(LOL - if you look back at my posts from, ooh, probably early 07, I said then Holocaust denial at least would be used to discredit the TM)

Of course not, particularly when it gets milked for all it's worth.
And I think it's a dangerous way of thinking. I have been strongly opposed to the actions of Israel for years, but I tend to keep schtum about it these days because I am sick to death of seeing (not just in truther circles) antipathy towards the actions of the state of Israel being exploited by people who have a problem with Jews generally. And I don't like the way anything you say apparently universally becomes ok if you use the word "Zionists", irrespective of whether you're actually making a clear and relevant point that specifically is about political Zionism. It makes me wary of the topic as I don't know whose tune I might be playing. Is that right? Is that a good thing?

And sure, some people encounter denial stuff and find it convincing because they can't answer it. Once when i was looking for something, I stumbled across a computer game forum where someone had posted a David Cole film. The other posters just didn't know what to make of it. Nobody could refute it and the thread had fizzled out. Maybe some went away and became deniers. What does that say about computer games?

Quote:

IF it's not your responsibility or desire to address or even acknowledge such issues, then whose responsibility is it? Nobody's? What does that mean for the future of the truth movement?

Er hello - and exactly how much do I dodge challenging denial/Jew theory/far right ideologies when they crop up...?
I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying it doesn't in any way define the TM, in the same way the near universal opposition in far right circles to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in no way defines the anti-war movement. Jew theorists won't change. They will continue to peddle their deluded bigotry regardless, and suck in a few of the naive and credulous along the way. If they didn't have the TM, they'd go somewhere else. What are the critics doing beyond chuckling to themselves from the sidelines because they have some ammunition to fire at the TM in general?

I despise this stuff probably a lot more than you do. I still struggle with getting my head round the way 1930s Nazi propaganda is recycled, updated and apparently sincerely stated by people online. The way some people actually try to blame the Jews for Nazi hatred of them truly sickens me. But when I see clearly rational, level-headed, committed people like Stefan - people who do far more than I could ever get my sh*t together to do - have to put up with their name and cause being besmirched for what other people who claim to follow the same cause have chosen to put on the internet, that rather sickens me too.
I'm not saying you, but what also annoys me is that certain people appear happy (911 Cultwatch, come on down!) these people are there as it gives them something to go at. Just read Larry O'Hara's godawful (and highly selective) 'paper' on the TM.

In the meantime, deniers in the TM - like Eric 'the puzzle of what happened to me' Williams (and lets not forget the controversy his denial caused at that conference ages ago), Eric 'everyone in the world is Jewish except me' Hufschmidt and Nick 'cut and paste from denier websites' Kollerstrom - are Mickey Mouse deniers and basically nobodies in Holocaust denial circles. Apart from Germar Rudolf's half-hearted attempt to look at cell phone calls from planes, AFAIK none of the (dying breed of) 'big guns' have endorsed the TM and a couple have explicitly rejected it. If you want to combat denial, the TM is probably not the best place to look.

If they do ultimately take over, I for one will totally wash my hands of all things truther.
Happy?_________________It's a man's life in MOSSAD

I can point again to the anti-war movement, the animal rights movement and the environmental movement as campaigns that all have far right/Holocaust denial contingents. And that this means little in terms of what those campaigns are fundamentally about.

Again, this is all very true in theory, but I don't see what purpose this point serves in practice. There are lots of people in both China and Wales, but when you actually look at it in reality, there are a LOT more in China. The existence of extreme minorities in any group or movement can be damaging or revealing or irrelevant. If there are problems in these other political movements then let them deal with it - we are talking here about the 9/11 truth movement.

Who decides what a campaign is fundamentally about? It strikes me that the idea of the 9/11 truth campaign being about any singular issue is untrue - the emphasis of the truth movement has changed significantly over time, and within the movement all sorts of different theories exist.

Quote:

The "significance" of far right influence is highly debatable. It has been my observation that the deniers tend to be largely indistinguishable from the Jew theorists. They form a contingent (at least online), but so do no planers and it would be farcical to lump truthers par se in with no planers.
And when Stefan says he doesn't actually meet them is he lying? Can you tell me with any authority how many of these people are actual campaigners and how many just use the net to try to spread their hobby horses?

I trust Stefan is telling the truth there. I don't know about the intentions of the campaigners.

Quote:

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying it doesn't in any way define the TM, in the same way the near universal opposition in far right circles to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in no way defines the anti-war movement. Jew theorists won't change. They will continue to peddle their deluded bigotry regardless, and suck in a few of the naive and credulous along the way. If they didn't have the TM, they'd go somewhere else. What are the critics doing beyond chuckling to themselves from the sidelines because they have some ammunition to fire at the TM in general?

I think this characterisation of critics is quite wrong. If you think I bring up these issues for 'chuckling' rights you have me all wrong.

I also don't think that a movement like the truth movement is in any position to control how it is defined. There is no central membership like a political party, no central manifesto, no ranking system to filter whose voice is more powerful and popular than anyone elses. It's all very well to write on these moderate forums that extremists do not define the TM - try going on an Alex Jones or Icke forum and peddling a moderate line.

I don't doubt the kind-hearted and moderate nature of many within the truth movement. I do class most truthers as 'misguided' rather than 'malicious'. Hope that doesn't come over as patronising .

I also don't think that a movement like the truth movement is in any position to control how it is defined. There is no central membership like a political party, no central manifesto, no ranking system to filter whose voice is more powerful and popular than anyone elses.

I quite agree. I'm writing something along these lines at the moment for my blog (don't hold your breath for it though, very busy right now).

This is why I now operate in a small group of people, knowing that the views of each, although all different, do not conflict and are essentially compatible with mine.

I really think that if you are going to be a truly effective activist, this is the best way to go. Being a part of an open-door movement will mean you have no choice at being asociated with all manner of view which you don't agree with it.

But I do not believe there are more anti-Semites in the truth movement than in the socialist movement or any other movement - there is no evidence for that Alex.

I continue to maintain that this is because, to those not suffering inordinate amounts of denial, the fact that 9/11 is dodgy is so plainly self-evident that people from every walk of life, every political persuassion and every other view will be able to see.

There are climate change campaigners who believe 9/11 needs re-investigation - at the same time a lot of 9/11 activists believe climate change is a scam.

There are many jewish people who believe 9/11 needs re-investigation - at the same time so do some of the most virulent anti-Semites believe the same thing.

Every age, every religion, every political persuasion will have its percentage of 9/11 questioners.

As it is a view which is largely under attack by the mainstream - attention will be drawn to any member with a socially unacceptable view and a tennous case will be made that they are representative of the whole.

It's ad hominem and innuendo and any thinking person can see that._________________

I think this characterisation of critics is quite wrong. If you think I bring up these issues for 'chuckling' rights you have me all wrong.

I didn't say you. I referred specifically to Cultwatch. I think being able to make negative generalisations about truthers is a way for some to feel they can make something they don't like seem even more negative. In some cases they're right, but it's not fair when people who quite blatantly aren't far right/Jew theorist/Holocaust denying crackpots get lumped in with them.

Quote:

I also don't think that a movement like the truth movement is in any position to control how it is defined. There is no central membership like a political party, no central manifesto, no ranking system to filter whose voice is more powerful and popular than anyone elses. It's all very well to write on these moderate forums that extremists do not define the TM - try going on an Alex Jones or Icke forum and peddling a moderate line.

Well I think that's kind of the point. Though I'd say even on the David Icke forum that can be done. I think the DI forum is a good case in point as you get some really 'strong' views expressed, but it has a large active membership and it's a certain set who tend to gravitate to the issues under discussion.
I don't really look at the AJ forum. I might have a browse. Do you post on either?

The funny thing is, I'm defending the TM against being a hotbed of Holocaust denial while a certain someone is apparently wanting me off this forum for (in the absence of any kind of explanation - apologies if untrue) being critical of a certain person's incredibly inept attempt at Holocaust denial - but hey! Life is full of irony - it's what makes it rich

I don't really look at the AJ forum. I might have a browse. Do you post on either?

No. This is the only 9/11 forum I have ever posted on that hasn't banned me after a couple of posts.

Quote:

The funny thing is, I'm defending the TM against being a hotbed of Holocaust denial while a certain someone is apparently wanting me off this forum for (in the absence of any kind of explanation - apologies if untrue) being critical of a certain person's incredibly inept attempt at Holocaust denial - but hey! Life is full of irony - it's what makes it rich

I hope you've noticed that I have resisted scoring a very easy point on that matter .

But I do not believe there are more anti-Semites in the truth movement than in the socialist movement or any other movement - there is no evidence for that Alex.

Apart from the fact that a simple internet search reveals hundreds, if not thousands, of 9/11 'campaigners' pursuing the jewish angle? Where do you measure how much of a drop in the ocean these supporters of 9/11 truth are?

At best, you can only guess and hope that the movement to which you all loosely belong is not corrupted beyond all use by those with extreme agendas.

Quote:

I continue to maintain that this is because, to those not suffering inordinate amounts of denial, the fact that 9/11 is dodgy is so plainly self-evident that people from every walk of life, every political persuassion and every other view will be able to see.

If we presume that you are correct about this, there is still a point to be made about access. I think it's fair to say that your average Joe will never even know about 9/11 truth - it has had little mention in the mainstream media. There may be a case (and I can only guess at this) that it's more likely that you come to 9/11 truth through far-right organisations than any other method. That is DEFINITELY one of the 'routes to 9/11 truth'.

Quote:

There are climate change campaigners who believe 9/11 needs re-investigation - at the same time a lot of 9/11 activists believe climate change is a scam.

There are many jewish people who believe 9/11 needs re-investigation - at the same time so do some of the most virulent anti-Semites believe the same thing.

Every age, every religion, every political persuasion will have its percentage of 9/11 questioners.

But there is no direct intellectual route for climate change campaigners to become truthers, wouldn't you agree?

Whereas if you think there is a scam with climate change, there is. If climate change is being deceitfully peddled to the public for whatever nefarious reason, then it is much less of a step to believing that 9/11 was deceitfully peddled to the public for whatever reason. In fact, it almost makes more sense to start believing in a grander scheme.

The same with holocaust denial. If you believe that we were lied to about the holocaust, and that it is some sort of fake history created largely for nefarious reasons, are you not far more likely to believe or at least consider 9/11 truth?

And is the opposite route not also likely. If you believe in 9/11 truth, does it not make you more likely to consider other allegations of deceit over important historical moments?

Quote:

As it is a view which is largely under attack by the mainstream - attention will be drawn to any member with a socially unacceptable view and a tennous case will be made that they are representative of the whole.

This is quite possible, but it is also a convenient way to ignore any issue. Attack the critic, not the point they are making. It's the same logic that has people accuse me of being a paid gvmt/NWO/zionist shill ad nauseum.

Apart from the fact that a simple internet search reveals hundreds, if not thousands, of 9/11 'campaigners' pursuing the jewish angle? Where do you measure how much of a drop in the ocean these supporters of 9/11 truth are?

By my own experience. How many people have I met out of the hundreds of people I have encountered who I felt could honestly be described as anti-Jewish bigots? Two.

Quote:

At best, you can only guess and hope that the movement to which you all loosely belong is not corrupted beyond all use by those with extreme agendas.

Well it's not really a movement. That's a point I've been trying to make to people recently. I don't know when the decision was made that if you question the official story of 9/11 you have magically joined a non-defined movement without any rules or organisation - but it was an appallingly bad one in PR terms.

Why, if I decide the official story doesn't add up am I suddenly and without my permission in a "movement" with some neo-nazi somewhere else who decided the same thing? It makes no sense.

As far as I'm concerned I'm not a part of any movement. I'm part of a small activist group and I help out several others. The borrom line is I'm me. And I bear no responsibility for anyone else just because they share an opinion with me on a single issue.

Quote:

If we presume that you are correct about this, there is still a point to be made about access. I think it's fair to say that your average Joe will never even know about 9/11 truth - it has had little mention in the mainstream media. There may be a case (and I can only guess at this) that it's more likely that you come to 9/11 truth through far-right organisations than any other method. That is DEFINITELY one of the 'routes to 9/11 truth'.

Its a bad guess, and you seem to be drifting into fantasy again. The overwhelming majority of "truthers", at least those I have met, are about as left-wing as its possible to be, and came to 9/11 truth from an anti-war standpoint.

Quote:

But there is no direct intellectual route for climate change campaigners to become truthers, wouldn't you agree?

Well climate change was one of my biggest issues for a long time before I found out about 9/11. But, I agree there is no direct route.

Quote:

Whereas if you think there is a scam with climate change, there is. If climate change is being deceitfully peddled to the public for whatever nefarious reason, then it is much less of a step to believing that 9/11 was deceitfully peddled to the public for whatever reason. In fact, it almost makes more sense to start believing in a grander scheme.

OK I'll give you that. But how does this lead to anti-Semitism?

Quote:

The same with holocaust denial. If you believe that we were lied to about the holocaust, and that it is some sort of fake history created largely for nefarious reasons, are you not far more likely to believe or at least consider 9/11 truth?

And is the opposite route not also likely. If you believe in 9/11 truth, does it not make you more likely to consider other allegations of deceit over important historical moments?

I get your logic regarding holocaust denial, it s a good argument but a good argument does not mean what it is claiming is true. There is no evidence that there are more holocaust deniers who question 9/11 than those who don't. Do you have numbers to show otherwise.

Anti-Semitism in general is what you claim your google search has shown.

As I alluded to in an earlier post I have seen socialist movements and groups riddled with anti-Semitism - it tends to come from an irrational escalation of their anger over the policies of the state of Israel. Of course in socialist movements there is a strict party line, and dos and don't and a hierrachy.

This is why anyone can hang around with them and hear some awful anti-Semitic guff, but you wont see it pushed on the street or in their publications or websites. Control.

"The 9/11 truth movement", as discussed, has none, so of course the anti-Semites are not stopped from being as racist as they want to be. It doesn't indicate a lack of bigots in other groups, simply a lack of control in this one.

Quote:

This is quite possible, but it is also a convenient way to ignore any issue. Attack the critic, not the point they are making. It's the same logic that has people accuse me of being a paid gvmt/NWO/zionist shill ad nauseum.

Well I've never accused you of that and I don't take any responsibility for those who did. It is not the same logic, it is very true. The only mainstream media attention the truth movement gets is when someone with objectional views on some other issue is uncovered._________________

Peace and Truth

Last edited by Stefan on Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:16 pm; edited 1 time in total

The NATO zone media have lied to the public about the most important event of the 21st Century allying themselves with blodthirsty warmongers and war criminals.

Might they have lied about other things too?

If I understand the point you're making correctly, I totally agree. If you think the media are lying about 9/11, then it stands to reason that they could well be lying about other things too. Including the holocaust.

I'm thinking about the banking crisis, Lockerbie, everything has changed in the media since the mid 1980s with the arrival of Murdoch and his mate Lord Victor Rothschild's destruction of the BBC through Marmaduke Hussey.

Since the mid 1980s the central nervous system of the NATO zone has been poisoned. Once you contol the central nervous system the organism will go crazy and slowly die.

Individuals are losing all faith in the social fabric which the media is supposed to safeguard.

9/11 or 7/7 could not have happened in the early 1980s
It's all about the media.

Alex_V wrote:

If I understand the point you're making correctly, I totally agree. If you think the media are lying about 9/11, then it stands to reason that they could well be lying about other things too. Including the holocaust.

I'm thinking about the banking crisis, Lockerbie, everything has changed in the media since the mid 1980s with the arrival of Murdoch and his mate Lord Victor Rothschild's destruction of the BBC through Marmaduke Hussey.

Since the mid 1980s the central nervous system of the NATO zone has been poisoned. Once you contol the central nervous system the organism will go crazy and slowly die.

Individuals are losing all faith in the social fabric which the media is supposed to safeguard.

9/11 or 7/7 could not have happened in the early 1980s

I've never seen any evidence to support this conspiratorial reading of events. Deregulation occured in many industries, not just broadcasting - it was part of Thatcherite general policy. What you call the destruction of the BBC, is actually the result of the increased pressure on the corporation to justify its license fee, and spend it efficiently.

Standards may well have dropped, and there are many criticisms of failings of the media. But I've never seen any evidence that this is due to some sort of evil plot.

First learn to read.
Then look at Radio Times and any broadsheet from the 70s and compare to today.
Then read Spycatcher and Hussey's biography.

Alex_V wrote:

I've never seen any evidence to support this conspiratorial reading of events. Deregulation occured in many industries, not just broadcasting - it was part of Thatcherite general policy. What you call the destruction of the BBC, is actually the result of the increased pressure on the corporation to justify its license fee, and spend it efficiently.

Standards may well have dropped, and there are many criticisms of failings of the media. But I've never seen any evidence that this is due to some sort of evil plot.

What totally amazes me, after reading this thread (British Fascists and 9/11 Untruths...) is that people like Dogsmilk and Stefan find the time and energy to reply to the nonsense on this site -- good on you for doing it, I guess someone has to do it...

You have a very stunted concept of 'left' and 'right' if you think that the difference between them is primarily to do with racism or anti-Semitism, as opposed to class issues. All other things being equal (e.g. mass hysteria permitting) it is perfectly possible for what we now call the 'left' to be 'anti-Semitic' - at least, as defined by their targets, who are generally 'Jewish financiers' rather than 'Jews as such,' though I cannot deny that the 'left' were often influenced by the common racial views of the time. Around 1900, at the time of the Boer War, English socialism certainly talked about Jews, as described here:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v01/v01p355_Lawson.html
I know you will say "IHR - holocaust deniers!", but their 'Journal of Historical Review' is a very broad project which includes many types of revisionist historian (I know because I have read their entire online archive), and this article is well worth reading._________________http://niqnaq.wordpress.com

Last edited by Rowan Berkeley on Fri Dec 12, 2008 2:14 pm; edited 1 time in total

I don't agree that it's about 'class issues' because some of the craziest people in Britain are ignorant working class racists.

I can't respond to that as it stands, because it's rather meaningless. If you start with a formulation as vague as "it's all about" then you can prove or disprove anything._________________http://niqnaq.wordpress.com

Let me try to explain (but I really just wanted people to read the article I gave the link for, it is extremely instructive).

Imagine you are a disgruntled, slave-driven, impoverished working-class lad. It is really not surprising that, if you are offered two explanations for your plight, one which calls for revolution against your own national rulers, and the other which merely requires you to persuade them that a certain 'alien minority' should be 'kicked out,' you will be less intimidated by the latter. This is just the normal basic scapegoating mechanism, of attacking a substitute target that can't fight back, because the target you originally wanted to attack is too damn powerful.

I am personally quite unable to reconcile myself to the capitalist system. Thus, the strategy of allying myself to it, by playing a role useful to it, such as deflecting criticism of it onto 'alien minorities,' doesn't arise. The question for me is, who actually 'owns' the capitalist system?

Even with a reasonably good general education, you still can't say with absolute certainty who really 'owns' capitalist economies. Maybe the exceptional financial crisis we're seeing now will make the real 'owners of the economies' more visible, whoever they may be._________________http://niqnaq.wordpress.com

Of course one can create a version of history to suit almost any set of political views.

But I disagree that any climate change campaigner would be encouraged by that view in itself to then turn to peak oil and 9/11. They are almost entirely different subjects - I see virtually no connection.

Supporting the consensus view on climate change involves supporting the establishment in terms of the scientific community - the consensus as expressed through the IPCC. Whereas supporting peak oil or 9/11 truth involves rejecting the scientific consensus - indeed it directly involves suspecting it of organised fraud in many cases.

Quote:

What totally amazes me, after reading this thread (British Fascists and 9/11 Untruths...) is that people like Dogsmilk and Stefan find the time and energy to reply to the nonsense on this site -- good on you for doing it, I guess someone has to do it...

I respect people who are willing to engage with people who have different views. Does anyone really progress by only mixing with those who agree with them?

Still, nobody here is prepared to explain to me why there are thousands of truther websites that see a Zionist hand in 9/11, and/or seem to promote views that could be labelled anti-semitic. Are Stefan and Dogsmilk (and others) just pretending that these websites don't exist?

As a side point I would say that there is a big difference between Zionism and Judaism, as most people can distinguish. It's a tricky term I agree as everyone seems to think it means a different thing. But it's perfectly possible to be against Zionism and not be anti-Semitic, it's also perfectly possible to be against Zionism and a committed member of the Jewish faith!_________________

That's not actually true - a number of investigations were undertaken immediately after the war, though obviously not up to contemporary standards.

The Allies held staged show trials after the war where most of what they presented is provably worthless. The Poles expelled the German population from the eastern regions and therefore had an incentive to make up a few crappy reports on "extermination camps" as a way of justifying their actions. To cast this as just an honest investigation not up to contemporary standards is totally misleading.

On a related note, 911-activists have yet to produce anything as compelling and persuasive as the major revisionist historical studies done by Carlo Mattogno and some others on the myths left over from WWII. In some measure that's just a consequence of the nature of the events. The collapses of the towers were such a rare and unduplicatable event that it's difficult for anyone to say much either way without speculation. It's much easier to debunk myths about 4000+ human bodies being cremated daily with well-known cremation technology at Auschwitz. But also the 911-activists have a measure of pompous arrogance that is not present among the leading revisionist researchers such as Mattogno or Germar Rudolf.

That's not actually true - a number of investigations were undertaken immediately after the war, though obviously not up to contemporary standards.

The Allies held staged show trials after the war where most of what they presented is provably worthless. The Poles expelled the German population from the eastern regions and therefore had an incentive to make up a few crappy reports on "extermination camps" as a way of justifying their actions. To cast this as just an honest investigation not up to contemporary standards is totally misleading.

On a related note, 911-activists have yet to produce anything as compelling and persuasive as the major revisionist historical studies done by Carlo Mattogno and some others on the myths left over from WWII. In some measure that's just a consequence of the nature of the events. The collapses of the towers were such a rare and unduplicatable event that it's difficult for anyone to say much either way without speculation. It's much easier to debunk myths about 4000+ human bodies being cremated daily with well-known cremation technology at Auschwitz. But also the 911-activists have a measure of pompous arrogance that is not present among the leading revisionist researchers such as Mattogno or Germar Rudolf.

Revisionist is the correct term. Since people shift so much on what is meant by the term "Holocaust" there's no point in claiming to deny something so ill-defined. But it's not a secret that revisionism of the latter story has at most a tangential intersection with 911-activism. Robert Faurisson summed up his view very clearly after 911:

-----
The revisionists will follow the example set by Paul Rassinier, the first revisionist. Proof against all war propaganda, they will aim for exactitude even as emotions on both sides are breeding lies. They will refuse to spread the inventions of anti-American, anti-Jewish, or anti-Arab propaganda. As for September 11, they are duty-bound to spare us such typical conspiratorial scuttlebutt as "Bush knew," "The CIA must have known," "The FBI was in on it," "It was all a Mossad plot," "Four thousand Jews didn't show up for work that day," "Explosives had been planted in both buildings," etc. Arab propaganda will harp more than ever on the myths of Jewish ritual murder or Jews poisoning gentiles' wells, and it will invoke that patent forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Many more rumors, delusions, lunacies, and examples of mass delusion are to be anticipated. The Americans will underestimate the numbers of victims of their bombings and the Afghans will exaggerate them. God or Jehovah, on one side, and Allah on the other, will, together with their prophets, be called upon to incite hatred and fear. False witnesses, false reports, false interviews, and fake documents will proliferate. In this field Bush the son will perhaps surpass Bush the father's story of the incubators unplugged by the Iraqis in Kuwait. Censorship, of course, will increase without governments even having to pass new laws.
-----

I find it very hard to believe that right in the middle of a conversation about the relationship between truthers and holocaust denial - a 9/11 truth critic turns up and starts talking denial...

I'd love it to be true, but I suspect this is a truther being cheeky, especially when you look at how surreally bad his arguments against 9/11 truth are on the WTC7 critics corner thread.

Come on, own up. Who is it?

Well someone using exactly the same handle has made 22 posts on CODOH and been a member since 2005.
The fact they present some bizarre theory the Allies would need to invent extermination camps to justify kicking Germans out of Poland (!?) - the Czechs didn't need to invent extermination camps on their soil did they? (for a start) and the fact they seem blissfully unaware Rudolf and Mattogno - despite being about the best, ahem, "revisionism" has to offer - have been repeatedly shown to be the charlatans they are kind of suggests they're one and the same as such posts probably seem plausible in the fantasy world of CODOH where dissent from the standard delusion is censored (as anyone familiar with RODOH well knows).
Add to that it's not the kind of common username people choose and I think you're on fairly safe ground with 'Holocaust denying critic'.

(Btw - the comment about "not up to contemporary standards" was just to indicate the difference between 1945 (and with Europe in ruins and the fate of the Jews not actually considered to be that enormous an issue) and 2008)

That's not actually true - a number of investigations were undertaken immediately after the war, though obviously not up to contemporary standards.

The Allies held staged show trials after the war where most of what they presented is provably worthless. The Poles expelled the German population from the eastern regions and therefore had an incentive to make up a few crappy reports on "extermination camps" as a way of justifying their actions. To cast this as just an honest investigation not up to contemporary standards is totally misleading.

On a related note, 911-activists have yet to produce anything as compelling and persuasive as the major revisionist historical studies done by Carlo Mattogno and some others on the myths left over from WWII. In some measure that's just a consequence of the nature of the events. The collapses of the towers were such a rare and unduplicatable event that it's difficult for anyone to say much either way without speculation. It's much easier to debunk myths about 4000+ human bodies being cremated daily with well-known cremation technology at Auschwitz. But also the 911-activists have a measure of pompous arrogance that is not present among the leading revisionist researchers such as Mattogno or Germar Rudolf.

Hmmm... do we have this forum's first Critic Holocaust Denier???

A chink in the armour of Alex's argument if so...

I heard something once. That consensus reports were found that showed that there was not enough Jewish people living in Germany to account for the amount that were killed. Apparently there was only around 4 million before the war. I believe these people were persecuted. I just am not sure about the numbers the Americans and allies said there were. The Nazi's were evil. But America did fund them.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum